Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
85 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,622 Year: 3,268/14,102 Month: 209/724 Week: 58/93 Day: 15/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 1 of 84 (317937)
06-05-2006 12:16 PM


The roots of this topic
For the "Great Debate" forum, Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

This topic starts with material from an Adminnemooseus / AdminBuzsaw conversation in the "Private Administration Forum" (PAF), which for those that have PAF access, starts here,. It is a side topic in a topic complimenting AdminBuzsaw on his moderation efforts.

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 7, writes:

I have poor memory abilities, so I don't have much any mental image of "the history of Buzsaw" at . I suspect that some of the edges of your creationist viewpoint have been worn off via your forum participation (ie - You're not quite the hard core creationist you used to be).

Buzaws' reply to the above:

AdminBuzsaw, in PAF topic message 8, writes:

Hi Moose. As for my creationist viewpoint, the hypothetical creationism of Buzsaw began to become unique in my early teens when I first began studying the Bible. The more I read in it, the more my viewpoints began to wear off from what I was hearing in pulpits and reading in evangelical books, though I agreed pretty much on the gospel message itself.

More marginal to this topic were some additional Buzsaw comments:

AdminBuzsaw, additionally writes:

My participation on forums began at the old now defunct Newsmax forum, username "Buzzboy where my viewpoints were about as unpopular as they are here. When that shut down we all split, the creationist types mostly going to their kind of forums and I choosing to go with the secularists, most of whom joined NoPC, (a place for the thick skinned) where moderation was pretty much nonexistent and the talk was rough. There I stayed until found EvC.

My forum experience overall has effected quite a significant honing down on some edges of my viewpoints, but mind you, only the edges. Shall we say that hypothetical viewpoint has been, imo, finetuned, due two what I've been taught by secularists as well as nonsecularists in the forums, but from the extensive amount of personal research required to debate the degree of intelligence one incounters, especially here at EvC where most, unlike myself have one or more educational degrees of some kind.

Adminnemooseus' reply to the main material above, which gets to the core of this topic:

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 9, writes:

Well, the gospel message is New Testiment isn't it?

The core of the creationism vs. evolution debate comes down to the content of the Old Testiment, specificly the Genesis story and the belief vs. non-belief of the literalism of it. What is "the hypothetical creationism of Buzsaw"? My blunt question for you is, are you a young Earth creationist?

To which Buzsaw replied:

AdminBuzsaw, in PAF topic message 10, writes:

I've explained the details several times over the years and this is likely not the place to go into it, but in short, imo the age of the earth until day five of creation is unknown. From day five which includes living creatures is roughly six thousand years old. The universe has eternally existed. This has been in my origins hypothesis long before I came here, so nothing significant regarding the Evo/Creo position has changed due to forum participation.

To which Minnemooseus replied:

Adminnemooseus, in PAF topic message 11, writes:

I apologize if I have prompted you to repeat something that you have made clear in the past, but if so, such was lost to me, in the clutter of the past. In other words, I was pretty clueless about "where you were coming from".

Seemingly, you can accept an old Earth and at least much of the biological and non-biological evolution that the old Earth record indicates.

Perhaps instead of carrying on here, a public "Great Debate" discussion between Buzsaw and Minnemooseus might be interesting (or it might be even more interesting if presented as a conversation between AdminBuzsaw and Adminnemooseus). If you are interested and willing, I can cull some material from this topic and submit it as a "Proposed New Topic". I would presume that you have no objections to the revealing of what we have said in the past few messages.

The following is miscellaneous material from the PAF messages, most not directly relevant to this topic. The third block of text, however, probably is relevant. Buzsaw specificly indicated that he would like it included int this topic.

Adminnemooseus, message 7, writes:

I've been thinking about that "Great Debate" between you an Jar from quite a while back. The one that I foolishly agreed to moderate, and then ended up doing nothing. Essentially, once you and Jar started rapid firing rather lengthy messages back and forth, in a subject pretty foreign to me, I was totally boggled. I should have known such was going to happen, and I should have declined the moderation job.

AdminBuzsaw, message 8, writes:

Ah, yes, that GD, which, as I understood was to be EvC's first offical totally structured and managed GD. I still claim it as the first official one, complete with moderator, appointed judges and the whole enchilada, including the followup peanut gallery, which btw, went the whole post limit or nearly so. As I remember, you did a little moderating, but unless my memory fails me, there were indeed two judges who were appointed but forgot to judge. I have my thinking on why, but we won't go into that.

AdminBuzsaw, message 10, writes:

The Buz/Jar GD and the PG followup thread was a significant test for my own benefit to assure me that my hypothesis was the best out there relative the thermodynamic laws. Imo, it eliminates the problems that both evos and young earth/young universe creationists have regarding the before problem. Young Universe folks have a huge problem, given they have an eternal idist minded creator, in that if he created it all a few thousand years ago he would be lonely and idle for all of the pre-universe past. I suppose we ought to move on, lest one of our cumbody admin friends gives us heck for topic drift.

That, and a few other messages concerning agreeing to this "Great Debate", gets us to my starting this topic. I will end message 1 here, and will also post new input as message 2.

Minnemooseus

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added subtitle. Also added an "I" that had gotten lost in the copy/paste procedures I did.


  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 2 of 84 (317938)
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


New material
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

The core of the broader theme of this topic is that those of the evolution side of the debate assume that anyone professing to be a creationist, is a young universe / young Earth creationist (YEC), unless they make clear otherwise. And it seems that for many of 's non-YEC creationists, statements of being non-YEC are obscure at best. Perhaps they have stated their non-YEC creationist position, but such gets lost in the clutter of the older topics. Or perhaps they do not have a clear personal opinion on the age of the universe / age of the Earth (as I found out about Randman via the Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic" topic).

But, in my opinion, those ages are most fundamental in the whole creationism/evolution debate.

My impression, from the material presented in message 1, is that you have no great conflicts with much of evolutionary theory, be it biological or non-biological. Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

Quoting from my version of the Bible, concerning "Sixth day: animals and man" (Genesis 1:24-27, it also continues on through verse 31):

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

First comment - Awful lot of redundant text there.

I am thinking that the key part of the above quoted is the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I am also thinking that you believe that that creation is a matter of spiritual and not physical image and likeness.

If I am interpreting your position correctly, you are very far from being a young universe, young Earth creationist. I see you as being able to accept the evolution of the human species from earlier life forms, to later (roughly 6000 years ago) be given by God the spiritual image of God.

As such, I would file you under "theistic evolutionist". Again, I see no major conflicts between your creationist viewpoint and the mainstream scientific evolutionary viewpoint. But then, I may be substantially misunderstanding your position.

Minnemooseus

Added by edit - For possible future reference, the list of "Biological Evolution", "Human Origins", and "Geology and the Great Flood" topics Buzsaw has posted to:

"Biological Evolution":
Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?
"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
Rodent speciation and Noah's Ark.
The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
Dinosaurs and man lived together, which destroys the theory of evolution
Nature: Archy was bird brain
Is there evidence for macroevolution?
Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?
Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
Urgent Help With Quote Miner
evolution is IN the bible!
Fear of venomous (& poisonous) animals: who is to blame?

"Human Origins":
How many Creationists here believe in the Caveman?
Was Nebraska Man a fraud?
Racial Evolution 101

"Geology and the Great Flood":
Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
Fresh Problem with the Ark
Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?
Pre-flood physics?
What about altitude
The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents
Frozen Tropical Animals
Buz's seashell claim
Question about this so called World Wide Flood.
Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added Buzsaw "Biological Evolution" and "Human Origins" topic lists.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added "Geology and the Great Flood" topic list.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 4:38 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2006 11:44 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 4 of 84 (318014)
06-05-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
06-05-2006 12:18 PM


Minnemooseus misreading of Buzsaw position
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Buzsaw writes:

...imo the age of the earth until day five of creation is unknown. From day five which includes living creatures is roughly six thousand years old.

Minnemooseus writes:

Your main creationist differences seem to kick in concerning the events of creation day 6.

I had midread the above quoted "unknown until day five" to mean "unknown until and including day five". In other words, my interpretation was that your "roughly six thousand years" did not include the day five creation event(s); It only included day six on.

This may well be a major glitch in my interpretation of your creationist position. Also, I seemed to have blotched my attention to some of day six, and got over-focused on the creation of man.

Feel free to comment on what I previously wrote, but be aware that I was not considering the events of day five, and misconsidered the events of day six. Back to the Bible for me.

Things are looking much more to be "Buzsaw is a YEC", or, even more confusing, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC".

Minnemooseus

Added by edit: OK, day five deals with the creation of fish and birds, but you have to go back to day three for the creation of vegetation. Essentially the Buzsaw position seems to be "day 4 and earlier - old Earth is acceptable"; "day five and later - young Earth". I thought I had made sense of the Buzsaw position, but now I'm boggled. Like I said above, "Buzsaw is a semi-YEC"?

Now ready for Buzsaw input.

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added top and bottom banners.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 12:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 12:25 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 7 of 84 (318574)
06-07-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
06-07-2006 12:25 AM


Please stand by for another message
First of all, calling me Moose in just fine. For some vague reason I was feeling extra formal at the beginning of this topic and started signing off with the full Minnemooseus, which is something I have rarely if ever done before. It think it had something to do with the fact that the roots of this topic was an Adminnemooseus/AdminBuzsaw conversation.

When I completed message 2, I was thinking we had major agreement, and this topic was going to be a very short one. So much for that idea.

As I see it, my blotched up message 2 has resulted in your message 5 reply being irrelevant to the debate, at least at this point. Maybe it will become relevant later. Anyway, I'm not going to make any response to message 5, other than to say I have no problem with an eternal universe, with what we now know as the universe being only the latest installment of a longer history.

Your first paragraph of message 6 anticipated what was going to be my next first question. I think I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far. The resolving of this point so quickly has really caught me by surprise.

Your second paragraph (further elaborated on in your third paragraph) anticipated what was going to be my second question. I had, at least generally, accurately predicted to myself what your response would be. Again, I find your answer acceptable, at least in the context of the debate so far.

I didn't have a third question lined up, or if I did, I sure can't remember it now.

Right now, I have nothing further to add. Please stand by until I come up with material and post another message.

Alas, I fear this topic may be merging into the same area as my "Great Debate" with Faith (Yes, Faith, I haven't forgotten it). You may want to look at Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 12:25 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 9:07 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 9 of 84 (318966)
06-08-2006 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
06-07-2006 9:07 AM


Just a short response - Young Earth made to appear old?
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

After all, the creator, being omnipotent could have effected a great deal of change in one day, having his mighty spirit effecting the geological change, et al and not relying on the natural processes via the sun, et al to provide the energy and change desired.

In the above quoted and also in message 6, in an obtuse sort of way, you seem to be saying that God had the power to created a young Earth with an appearance of a much older age, and that maybe he did.

Do you agree with that statement, and if so, might such have also extended into the creations of days 5 and 6?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Concerning planet Earth, Buzsaw recognizes that the worldly evidence does give support to ages and processes that fall outside of the Buzsaw model".

(Being an obtuse) Moose

Added by edit:

This is not really something I want to bring into this message, but if I don't do it now, I won't remember to do it later:

Buzsaw, in message 5, writes:

Adam was the first earth man ever, created in one literal day roughly six milleniums ago as the perfect man who being created perfect was far superior to any since the fall in every respect, body soul and mind, but nevertheless totally human as we are.

Were there other "simular to man, but not man" creatures created in day 6, perhaps prior to the creation of Adam? Creatures not quite up to being "in God's image"?

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added banner message at top and bottom of message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2006 9:07 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 11 of 84 (343456)
08-25-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
06-08-2006 11:01 PM


Just (another) short response
From a current "Proposed New Topic":
Buzsaw writes:

10. Most are YEC's. I am not. I am however a YCC, which is a Young Creature Creationist, meaning all creatures were created roughly six milleniums ago.

But some creatures were created prior to day 5. You are a "Some creatures are old, some creatures are young" creationist. Which still puts you outside of the worldly evidence of the creation story.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 12:49 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 12 of 84 (414601)
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


From message 108 of the "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist" topic:

Buzsaw writes:

Yah, I know. For years I've tried to make it clear that I'm neither a YEC or YUC (young universe creo), explaining in detail as to why not a YEC and why I am eternal universalist but often still get lumped in the one lump as you say.

As I see it, you are part OEC, part YEC. You do compress a big chunk of (distorted) Earth history into the 5000 to 10,000 years, or whatever it is.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2007 12:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 13 of 84 (415586)
08-11-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
08-05-2007 6:33 AM


Bump for Buz
Comments in this topic?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-05-2007 6:33 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 16 of 84 (415607)
08-11-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
08-11-2007 1:10 AM


I say you're essential a YEC
I pretty much go with the Bishop James Ussher geneology record which is about 6000 years for both man and all other living things except plants.

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 1:10 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 2:04 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 18 of 84 (415613)
08-11-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
08-11-2007 2:04 AM


Re: I say you're essential a YEC
Moose writes:

Mainstream science has animal life going back to somewhere prior to the Cambrian (aka the pre-Cambrian). This is 550+ million years ago. You put this into +/-6000 years - I call that essentially YECism.

Also, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your IDisms in this topic?

OK I see the problem. My statements were relative to earth, the planet but yes, things on the planet pertain to earth so in that sense you were correct in that there is an element of YEC in my OEC position.

I neglected to point out / emphasize that there is also a big chuck of geology (aka "the rocks") that are the same age as the fossils they enclose. Your position is also putting all those 550+ million year old rocks into +/- 6000 years. You're crunching the record/evidence of a lot of geological process by a factor of about 1000. Well, thank God you have the wonder flood to do miracles for you. It can somehow pull off a vast array of processes, and do it fast.

Or would you prefer to pursue the "young but looks old" variety of creationism? Personally, I would prefer to believe the evidence presented in the product of the creation over the story of a book.

Moose

Added by edit: Please feel free to take your time on your replies. I certainly don't need them tonight or even this weekend.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above. Also change ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-11-2007 2:04 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 2:16 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 23 of 84 (443614)
12-26-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
08-12-2007 2:16 AM


Were their any non-young life forms?
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

First a few basic questions.

The Genesis account is a little thin on details. Were there some early life forms not accounted for in the Genesis story? Does Genesis cover things such as the trilobites found in the Cambrian rock, those of so called Cambrian age? Going much deeper into the geologic column and further back in time, what about algae and bacteria in the pre-Cambrian?

Does all the life forms of the Earth's history fall into your "young" framework? Were there old (much more than 10,000 year) life forms?

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added the algae/bacteria sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2007 2:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2007 8:11 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 24 of 84 (444270)
12-28-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 3:26 PM


Re: The Buzsaw Hypothesis Bump - Counterbump
I've posted message 23. I presume that has slipped by your attention.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 3:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 26 of 84 (448098)
01-11-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
12-28-2007 8:11 PM


The U.S. history analogy to the Earth's geologic history (or something like that)
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Lifted from this ICANT message:

quote:
If life appeared 3.8 billion years ago...
Prokaryotes appeared about 2.6 billion years ago...
Eukaryotes appeared about 1.5 billions years ago...
Multicellular life appeared about 700 million years ago...

Taken from chart here: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/les4/Vles4nb.html
From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took 3.1 billion years.

My essential point of the moment is, an old Earth and life history are interlinked. Do deny old life is to deny old Earth. Thus, as I see it, your position is very close to “pure” YEC.

Now, I don’t want to get hung up on absolute dates. Thus, let me rephrase the above quoted as:

quote:
Multicellular life appeared what seems to be many, many years ago.
Eukaryotes appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.
Prokaryotes appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.
Life appeared what seems to be many, many years prior to the previous.

From the simplest life form (single cell) to multicellular life forms it took many, many years.

The geology of the Earth (aka “the rocks”) is a vast and extremely complex 3 dimensional “puzzle”. I say “puzzle” in that the many parts all fit together.

Now (again, without absolute dating), just by physical geometric relationships, the relative timings of events can largely be determined.

Analogy time, the history of the United States –

Think of the history of the United States as a country (since the declaration of independence). But think of it without any absolute dates – No 1776, no 1812, etc. Just think of all the things, big and small, that have happened since the declaration.

Now you know that some of the things happened at the same time or in overlapping times. Other things happened in some sort of (time) sequence.

Now I’m going to tell you that all these events happened in a, say, 10 year time span. Of course, you would respond “No way. All that couldn’t have happened in just 10 years”. And you would be right.

Now we go to the geologic history of the Earth –

Just like any history, an essentially if not absolutely infinite number of events, small to large, have happened. Some of these events happened at the same time or in overlapping times. Other things happened in some sort of (time) sequence. And like the U.S. history events, it is obvious to those “in the know” that certain events or processes required some minimum amount of time.

Now you are telling me that all these events happened in a, say, 10,000 year time span. Of course, I’m going to respond “Now way. All that couldn’t have happened in just 10,000 years”. And the worldly evidence (the nature of “the creation”) very much indicates that I am right.

Or something like that.

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix the link to the "Geology- working up from basic principles" topic. Had an extra space in there.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added the "Great Debate" banners.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 12-28-2007 8:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2008 11:59 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 28 of 84 (454896)
02-09-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
02-03-2008 11:59 AM


You're trying to have it both ways
"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Mainstream scientific thought:
Origin of the Earth - ~4.5 billion years ago.
Origin of animal life - At least 600 million years ago.

The Buzsaw line:
Origin of the Earth - Unknown, 4.5 billion years ago an acceptable possibility.
Origin of animal life - 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Buz, your animal life number is roughly 1/100,000th that of the mainstream science number. Sorry, but I can't look at compressing 600+ million years into 5-10 thousand years as being anything other than young Earthism.

Your position is something along the lines of telling me that you can accept that the U.S. became a country approximately 230 years ago, but everything from the end of World War II has happened in the past 2 weeks.

Moose

"Great Debate", messages by Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only

Added by edit: Linky to a little creation music.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2008 11:59 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 9:47 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 30 of 84 (542333)
01-08-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
03-07-2008 9:47 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Topic reopened (thank you, Adminnemooseus).

Buz, you have a vague acceptance of a multi-milion/billion year old Earth.

As such, you seem to accept the existence of multi-million year old sedimentary rocks, that contain the fossil record of life. But that life is of the same age as the enclosing rocks! You can't have old rocks containing the remains of young life.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2008 9:47 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2010 11:32 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-15-2011 11:43 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021